classes built by JDK

Hi, Josh Triplett proposed me a patch to move javacc from contrib to main (see bug #225484). We however have a question regarding java classes embedded into a .jar file that were compiled against Sun'JDK (non-free). The .java source files are all provided in the package's source (they can be

Re: classes built by JDK

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:45:59AM +0100, Nicolas Sabouret wrote: > Josh Triplett proposed me a patch to move javacc from contrib to > main (see bug #225484). > The .java source files are all provided in the package's source > (they can be compiled using kaffe) but the fact is they were not > com

Re: [ardour-dev] The Ardour Manual

Scripsit Robert Joerdens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hmm. Provide the LaTex code (scrambled) and place it under the GPL. If it's deliberately scrambled so as to make modifications difficult, then placing it under GPL will be pointless -- scrambled source does not qualify as "source" by the GPL's defini

Re: [ardour-dev] The Ardour Manual

Hi! On Wed, 07 Jan 2004, Paul Davis wrote: > >* What license is the scrambled manual placed under? (An open source > > license can hardly be used because pdf is a very opaque format.) > >* Can it be redistributed? If yes, in w

Re: [ardour-dev] The Ardour Manual

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hmm. Provide the LaTex code (scrambled) and place it under the GPL. > > If it's deliberately scrambled so as to make modifications difficult, > then placing it under GPL will be pointless As far as I can see it is not scrambled in order to hinder modifica

Re: classes built by JDK

On Jan 8, 2004, at 04:45, Nicolas Sabouret wrote: Hi, Josh Triplett proposed me a patch to move javacc from contrib to main (see bug #225484). We however have a question regarding java classes embedded into a .jar file that were compiled against Sun'JDK (non-free). The .java source files

Re: [ardour-dev] The Ardour Manual

On Jan 8, 2004, at 06:02, Robert Joerdens wrote: Hmm. Provide the LaTex code (scrambled) and place it under the GPL. Providing source code (LaTex) that contains a few errors (scrambling) might still qualify as "source code" because it _is_ the sourcecode for the PDF. Problem is that someone coul

Re: Licence question (suprise!)

On Jan 7, 2004, at 11:00, Matthew Vernon wrote: Can I just say "...distributed under the terms of the GPL, with the exception that this code may be linked with OpenSSL" or somesuch? I'd rather not relicence under a BSD-style thingumy. Parts that might be useful to upstream should probably be

Re: classes built by JDK

Salut Nicolas, Nicolas Sabouret wrote: Hi, Josh Triplett proposed me a patch to move javacc from contrib to main (see bug #225484). We however have a question regarding java classes embedded into a .jar file that were compiled against Sun'JDK (non-free). The .java source files are all prov

urgente

Ciao Valeria… Ho un problema enorme, non riesco ad entrare nel vostro sito…. Puoi aiutarmi. Allora quando digito il sito, mi compare la pagina di presentazione del sito scritta da te, e poi non c’è altro…. Come si fa ad entrare Ti prego rispondici….. un bacio….. chiccoBSX

urgente

Ciao Valeria… Ho un problema enorme, non riesco ad entrare nel vostro sito…. Puoi aiutarmi. Allora quando digito il sito, mi compare la pagina di presentazione del sito scritta da te, e poi non c’è altro…. Come si fa ad entrare Ti prego rispondici….. un bacio….. chiccoBSX

Re: [ardour-dev] The Ardour Manual

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004, Robert Joerdens wrote: > Hmm. Provide the LaTex code (scrambled) and place it under the GPL. > Providing source code (LaTex) that contains a few errors > (scrambling) might still qualify as "source code" because it _is_ > the sourcecode for the PDF. Problem is that someone coul

Packaging Linuxant's driverloader?

Can someone tell me the legal status of Linuxant's driverloader software as it relates to packaging for Debian? I believe the software itself, while it needs a license key, is free, although it requires non-free Windows drivers to operate properly. Perhaps the package could prompt for a path to

Re: Packaging Linuxant's driverloader?

Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:12:41PM -0600, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote: Can someone tell me the legal status of Linuxant's driverloader software as it relates to packaging for Debian? I believe the software itself, while it needs a license key, is free, although it requires no

Re: Packaging Linuxant's driverloader?

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:12:41PM -0600, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote: > Can someone tell me the legal status of Linuxant's driverloader software > as it relates to packaging for Debian? I believe the software itself, > while it needs a license key, is free, although it requires non-free > Windows

Re: Packaging Linuxant's driverloader?

On 2004-01-09 03:48:49 + Joel Konkle-Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I guess the meat of my question applies to ndiswrapper as well. ndiswrapper itself is GPL, but to work properly, requires the Windows drivers for the network devices it is trying to config